- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 13,988
- Reaction score
- 6,593
- Location
- Charlottesville, VA
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
One of the most contentious issues in the vast literature about alcohol consumption has been the consistent finding that those who don't drink actually tend to die sooner than those who do.
Moderate drinking, which is defined as one to three drinks per day, is associated with the lowest mortality rates in alcohol studies. Moderate alcohol use (especially when the beverage of choice is red wine) is thought to improve heart health, circulation and sociability, which can be important because people who are isolated don't have as many family members and friends who can notice and help treat health problems.
The linked article neither states nor supports the notion that heavy drinkers outlive nondrinkers. It compares moderate to no drinking. Alcoholism is a serious health risk and leads to substantially shortened lifespan
But even after controlling for nearly all imaginable variables — socioeconomic status, level of physical activity, number of close friends, quality of social support and so on — the researchers (a six-member team led by psychologist Charles Holahan of the University of Texas at Austin) found that over a 20-year period, mortality rates were highest for those who had never been drinkers, second-highest for heavy drinkers and lowest for moderate drinkers.
One of the most contentious issues in the vast literature about alcohol consumption has been the consistent finding that those who don't drink actually tend to die sooner than those who do. The standard Alcoholics Anonymous explanation for this finding is that many of those who show up as abstainers in such research are actually former hard-core drunks who had already incurred health problems associated with drinking.
Wait what?
Those who abstain from the alcohol are actual former drinkers who had health issues in this study? How about those who have never had a drink?
But a new paper in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research suggests that — for reasons that aren't entirely clear — abstaining from alcohol does actually tend to increase one's risk of dying even when you exclude former drinkers.
How about those who have never had a drink?
Actually, it did.
Moderate drinkers lived the longest.
Followed by heavy drinkers.
Followed by non-drinkers.
Why the **** hasn't anyone posted this yet?
My apologies. I missed that statement and the rest referenced moderate drinkers
I wouldn't be surprised if this is a matter of correlation not being causation... I find it more likely that the type of people who don't drink are, for some reason or another, more at risk to have a shorter lifespan.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is a matter of correlation not being causation... I find it more likely that the type of people who don't drink are, for some reason or another, more at risk to have a shorter lifespan.
In fact, those who never drink are at significantly higher risk for not only depression but also anxiety disorders, compared with those who consume alcohol regularly.
The most powerful explanation seems to be that abstainers have fewer close friends than drinkers, even though they tend to participate more often in organized social activities. Abstainers seem to have a harder time making strong friendship bonds, perhaps because they don't have alcohol to lubricate their social interactions. After all, it's easier to reveal your worst fears and greatest hopes to a potential friend after a Negroni or two.
Heavy Drinkers Outlive Nondrinkers, Study Finds - TIME>>
Why the **** hasn't anyone posted this yet? This is cause for a massive celebration with lots of alcohol! **** Yeah. I knew that wine I've been drinking nightly was good for something. >>
Does that mean they've found booze that doesn't effect the liver?
ricksfolly
Even though heavy drinking is associated with higher risk for cirrhosis and several types of cancer (particularly cancers in the mouth and esophagus), heavy drinkers are less likely to die than people who have never drunk.
Honestly... I don't get our society's obsession with longer life while not looking at ways to improve the human condition itself, and I am continually disappointed that the scientific establishment upholds such empty values. What about quality of life? Alcoholics may live longer according to this study, but at what price? Are they happy drowning their sorrows all the time?
I would rather live 10 years less but in satisfaction with my accomplishments and a sense of happiness than be a weekend binge drinker who works a 9-5 that hates his life. I seriously want to know where the financial support for this study came from.
According to this study, the reason that the non-drinkers die earlier is not because drinking necessarily improves your health, but because drinkers are more sociable, have better friend/family networks, and are less likely to be depressed. That indicates that it's not likely that the drinkers are the ones who hate their lives. If we're just looking at QoL, it seems like moderate drinkers have a leg up.
Then the health benefits have to do with the other factors you mentioned, not the alcohol itself. People turn to alcohol to relieve stress and to have a social lubricant. People who are that way without the need to drink are arguably just as healthy. The statistic is misleading readers into believing that alcohol = longer life, when on an individual level it won't work that way.
Almost certainly true, though I think it's possible that a non-drinker who decides to become a drinker or vice versa might experience a change in the other areas of their life. I think you're right about correlation v. causation, but there's probably some degree of causation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?